FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-6587. January 27, 1956.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GAUDENCIO DE JOYA Y CAPACIA, ET
AL.,Defendants, RICARDO HORNALES Y YAMBAO, Defendant-Appellant.

DECISION
REYES, J. B. L., J.:
On November 5, 1951, Gaudencio de Joya, Nicanor Reyes, Julian Sumaway, Cesar Manipola, and Ricardo
Hornales were charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of theft (Criminal Case No.
17088) under the following information: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

That on or about the 5th of October, 1951, at night time purposedly sought to better accomplish their
ends, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloneously, with intent of gain and without the knowledge and
consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away a mooring rope approximately 160 meters, 3
inches in diameter, valued at P4,000, belonging to the United States Lines, to the damage and prejudice
of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P4,000, Philippine currency. (Appellants Brief, pp. 1-2)
Upon arraignment, each of the accused at first pleaded not guilty to charge. On the date of the trial,
however, all five Defendants, with the assistance of counsel, moved to withdraw their respective pleas
of not guilty in order to substitute the same with that of guilty, which motion the Court granted. The
accused were then rearraigned, and after having been informed of the nature and consequences of a
plea of guilt, all pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon, the trial Court rendered judgment sentencing
the accused as follows:chanroble svirtuallawlibrary

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS the Court finds each and everyone of the above-
mentioned Defendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft, with the aggravating
circumstance of nocturnity but which was offset by the plea of guilty and, therefore, sentences each and
everyone of them to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) months of arresto mayor as
minimum to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as
maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by the law, and to pay the costs. No indemnity was
awarded to the complainant, The United States Lines, in view of the manifestation of the prosecution
made in open court, that the property stolen was recovered. (Appellants Brief, Appendix, pp. 9-10)
From this judgment, one of the Defendants, Ricardo Hornales, appealed to this Court, questioning the
correctness of the minimum period of his penalty.
Appellant admits that the maximum term of his sentence is correct. He likewise admits that its minimum
term (4 months of arresto mayor) is within the range prescribed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law in
this case, which is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, or from 2 months and 1 day to 4
months. His only argument in support of the appeal is that (1) the properties stolen having been
recovered, (2) this being his first offense, and (3) he having pleaded guilty to the charge, which shows
repentance for his act and lack of perversity in defying the law, the lower Court should have imposed
upon him as the minimum of his indeterminate sentence, the lowest range of arresto mayor, which is 2
months and 1 day.
We see no reason to disturb the judgment of the Court below with respect to the minimum
ofAppellants penalty. The determination of the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence within
the range provided by law is left entirely within the discretion of the trial court, and this discretion
should not be interfered with except in case of abuse. Appellants arguments fail to show any such
abuse. The fact that the properties stolen were recovered merely exemptsAppellant from civil liability,
but has no bearing on the determination of his penalty; while his plea of guilt is required to be
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

considered (by way of mitigation) only in the imposition of the maximum term of his sentence, and in
this case, it had already been taken into account as offsetting the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity, so that Appellant was given only the medium period of the proper penalty as the maximum
term of his sentence. As to the fact that the present offense is the first committed by this Appellant,
suffice it to say that the penalty fixed by the Code is usually for the first offense; for otherwise, the
chan roble svirtualawlibrary

aggravating circumstances of recidivism or of reiteracion (Article 14, Nos. 9 and 10, RPC) would come
into play and operate to increase the penalty.
The minimum penalty of Appellants sentence being within the range fixed by law, the same should be,
as it is hereby, affirmed.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against Appellant Ricardo Hornales. SO
ORDERED.
Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.